Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 59

Thread: Should Libertarians Vote Republican? (Only if they’re insane)

  1. #1

    Should Libertarians Vote Republican? (Only if they’re insane)



    Should Libertarians Vote Republican? (Only if they’re insane)

    By Laurence M. Vance


    September 1, 2015


    Constitutional conservatives, Reagan Republicans, and other conservative Republicans have no use for libertarians—except when it comes time for another election. Then they want the votes of libertarians.

    Although they shy away from the term “libertarian” in non-election years, they will describe themselves as libertarian-leaning when they want to sucker libertarians to vote for them on election day.


    There are two things that these libertarian-leaning Republicans can’t stand. The first is not voting and the second is voting for a third party.


    Many libertarians simply don’t vote. They know that the system is rigged. [emphasis added] They know that you have a greater chance of being killed in a car accident on the way to the polls than of your vote making any difference. They know that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. They know that most elections are simply contests between tweedledum and tweedledee, socialist A and national socialist B, or socialist A and fascist B. They know that even though Republicans use libertarian rhetoric, they are welfare/warfare statists just like Democrats. They know that voting for candidate D or R is like voting for Hitler to keep out Stalin or voting for Stalin to keep out Hitler. They know that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. They agree with Noam Chomsky that “if voting could actually change anything, it would be illegal,” with Mark Twain that “if voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it,” with Charles Bukowski that “the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting,” with H. L. Mencken that “every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods,” and with whoever said that voting just encourages the bastards. They know that only way to vote against crook A and crook B is to not vote. And libertarian Christians know that the Bible says: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” (Exodus 23:2).


    Many libertarians vote for a third party. Obviously, the Libertarian Party is their first choice. However, if no libertarian candidate is running for a particular office, they might vote for another third party, even if they don’t agree with its platform, just to send a message to the Democratic and Republican Parties that they despise them. Democrats and Republicans both say that voting for a third party is wasting your vote since a third party has almost no chance of winning. But not only that, Democrats and Republicans both say or imply that you should never vote for a third party because it takes votes away from them. Republicans especially will point to particular elections that they say Republicans would have won if the Libertarian Party candidate had not siphoned off votes from the Republican Party candidate. What they are really saying, of course, is that Republicans would have won these elections if they weren’t indistinguishable from Democrats.


    More than anything else, Republicans want libertarians to vote for them. They know that liberals, Democrats, progressives, and other socialists will never vote Republican. They would rather vote for an Obama or a Hillary than a Republican.


    But why should libertarians vote Republican? Yes, it keeps those evil Democrats out of office. But then it just gives us evil Republicans. The Republican Party stands for everything libertarians oppose. Here are twenty-five things off the top of my head:


    The Drug War
    Gambling laws
    Anti-discrimination laws
    The National Instant Criminal Background Check System
    The ATF and federal gun laws
    Cuba sanctions
    Indefinite detention at Guantanamo
    Torture
    Crony capitalism
    Militarism
    Foreign wars
    The welfare state
    The warfare state
    The police state
    The national security state
    Food stamps
    The CIA, FBI, DIA, DHS, TSA, and NSA
    The Earned Income Tax Credit
    Foreign aid
    The U.S. global empire of troops and bases
    Farm subsidies
    Social Security
    Medicare and Medicaid
    The National School Lunch Program
    Pell Grants and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act


    And judging from the reaction of Republicans to the Iran deal, I don’t think they would have a problem with killing Persians in Iran.


    Are there individual Republicans who oppose some of these things? Certainly. But not many, and only a few things. But what about all the Republican talk about the Constitution, the free market, free enterprise, limited government, smaller government, less regulation, balanced budgets, lower taxes, property rights, and fiscal conservatism? Is it all just lies and hot air? In a word, yes.


    Okay, okay, okay, say Republicans, enough already. But you libertarians should at least vote for a Republican for president so he can nominate conservative Supreme Court justices and Republicans in the Senate so they can confirm the nominations.


    Is that so? Three of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in my lifetime that didn’t turn out how Republicans wanted were:

    Roe v. Wade (abortion)
    National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Obamacare)
    Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage)

    The writer of the majority opinion in all three cases was a Republican appointee: Harry Blackmun, John Roberts, and Anthony Kennedy. And why did only three Republicans in the Senate back in 1993 vote against the confirmation of the most radical leftist on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

    Libertarians would have to be out of their mind to vote Republican.

    The Best of Laurence M. Vance

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/09/...te-republican/

    Copyright © 2015 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are provided.




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Another helpful (sic) article from the Lew Rockwell crowd. That's right, folks. Don't vote. Don't vote for what is likely the most liberty-loving candidate, other than Ron, that you will likely see in your entire lifetime; who actually has a chance to win. Nope. Don't do that. Instead, sit on yon asses and pontificate along with us in Lew and co. about how "pure" you are.

    Brought to you by Lew Rockwell and company.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  4. #3
    Jan2017
    Member

    Libertarians probably don't stick around for all the 50 questions of Quinni U polling BS . . . so they don't get polled much fer' sure.

    Libertarians are also pretty good at caucuses in my experiences from '08 and '12 in Iowa - and now in CO for 2016 caucus.
    In the end, who could blame anybody for not voting if this is the choice to lead the USA . . .



    .
    Last edited by Jan2017; 09-01-2015 at 09:42 AM. Reason: added jpg

  5. #4
    The least of 20 evils is still just fricken' evil, when all is said and done.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    The least of 20 evils is still just fricken' evil, when all is said and done.
    Rand is a Republican. Are you saying he is evil too?
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Rand is a Republican. Are you saying he is evil too?
    According to your Bible, all human governments are ruled and controlled by Satan.

    See if you can somehow manage to figure out the inescapable implications.

  8. #7
    Not voting is like staying silent while a violent crime is taking place

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
    Not voting is like staying silent while a violent crime is taking place
    Wouldn't you be inclined to think that just maybe all those years of cumulative voting just might have solved all of those annoying problems by now?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Wouldn't you be inclined to think that just maybe all those years of cumulative voting just might have solved all of those annoying problems by now?
    False imperative. That's like insisting that libertarianism solve all problems in order to be a viable 'better than what we have.'

    Voting repealed a tax one time. Argument annihilated
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  12. #10
    Constitutional conservatives, Reagan Republicans, and other conservative Republicans have no use for libertarians—except when it comes time for another election. Then they want the votes of libertarians.


    Pre-emptively, and falsely, characterizing (Rand Paul) as opportunist in same vein as traditional politician.

    Although they shy away from the term “libertarian” in non-election years, they will describe themselves as libertarian-leaning when they want to sucker libertarians to vote for them on election day.
    Use of 'they' further illustrates author fails own purity tests. Use of 'sucker' further illustrates false characterizations (creating and then attacking a cartoon)

    There are two things that these libertarian-leaning Republicans can’t stand. The first is not voting and the second is voting for a third party.
    Individuals have varied opinions.

    Many libertarians simply don’t vote. They know that the system is rigged.
    [emphasis added]
    Fine. 'Voting' then is the easy target. The single, lonely vote that only the insane loser would take 2 minutes to cast, at zero personal risk and very little personal cost. And yet the aim of the article itself, though probably not intentionally, is to convince others to throw their hands up in the air, lose hope in touching anything electoral, to harbor disdain for peers who do(rare, sweet, precious peers in a world of idiocracy!), and write articles that convince others to do the same. Well misery loves company.

    They know that you have a greater chance of being killed in a car accident on the way to the polls than of your vote making any difference.
    It is not one vote but a lifetime of both voting (on candidates and issues - each election being a dozen or more votes) and of not being a person who discourages other likeminded votes / encourages likeminded votes.

    They know that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. They know that most elections are simply contests between tweedledum and tweedledee, socialist A and national socialist B, or socialist A and fascist B.
    Irrelevant to the big race in question, which does not resemble that description, though true of most races.

    They know that even though Republicans use libertarian rhetoric, they are welfare/warfare statists just like Democrats.
    Irresponsible characterization given the obvious implication of the unique case of Rand Paul's great, worthy, heroic effort.

    They know that voting for candidate D or R is like voting for Hitler to keep out Stalin or voting for Stalin to keep out Hitler. They know that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. They agree with Noam Chomsky that “if voting could actually change anything, it would be illegal,” with Mark Twain that “if voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it,” with Charles Bukowski that “the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting,” with H. L. Mencken that “every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods,” and with whoever said that voting just encourages the bastards.
    Fair enough, but like most quotes, penchant for the dramatic and necessity of brevity results in something short of axiom.

    They know that only way to vote against crook A and crook B is to not vote.
    Quippy, but does not apply to the times when voting is rational, justified, acceptible, and consistent with libertarianism.

    And libertarian Christians know that the Bible says: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” (Exodus 23:2).
    Must prove voting is always evil, but doesn't. Implication is veiled and untrue. Voting against laws is not evil. Voting for a candidate who represents smaller government is not evil.

    Many libertarians vote for a third party. Obviously, the Libertarian Party is their first choice. However, if no libertarian candidate is running for a particular office, they might vote for another third party, even if they don’t agree with its platform, just to send a message to the Democratic and Republican Parties that they despise them. Democrats and Republicans both say that voting for a third party is wasting your vote since a third party has almost no chance of winning.
    Wasted vote argument is indeed garbage.

    But not only that, Democrats and Republicans both say or imply that you should never vote for a third party because it takes votes away from them.
    Strategic voting can be sensibly discussed but the argument that a 3rd party candidate causes one side to win and therefore invalidates the free expression of individuals is indeed garbage.

    Republicans especially will point to particular elections that they say Republicans would have won if the Libertarian Party candidate had not siphoned off votes from the Republican Party candidate. What they are really saying, of course, is that Republicans would have won these elections if they weren’t indistinguishable from Democrats.
    I agree, shaming individuals' from voting as they see fit is garbage.

    More than anything else, Republicans want libertarians to vote for them. They know that liberals, Democrats, progressives, and other socialists will never vote Republican. They would rather vote for an Obama or a Hillary than a Republican.
    And Libertarians want Republicans to vote for them, or whatever absurd amount of words it would take to properly describe without grossly generalized collectivism.

    But why should libertarians vote Republican?
    Because they wish to and have the freedom to. And then, because there is a candidate worthy of it.

    Yes, it keeps those evil Democrats out of office. But then it just gives us evil Republicans. The Republican Party stands for everything libertarians oppose. Here are twenty-five things off the top of my head:

    The Drug War
    Gambling laws
    Anti-discrimination laws
    The National Instant Criminal Background Check System
    The ATF and federal gun laws
    Cuba sanctions
    Indefinite detention at Guantanamo
    Torture
    Crony capitalism
    Militarism
    Foreign wars
    The welfare state
    The warfare state
    The police state
    The national security state
    Food stamps
    The CIA, FBI, DIA, DHS, TSA, and NSA
    The Earned Income Tax Credit
    Foreign aid
    The U.S. global empire of troops and bases
    Farm subsidies
    Social Security
    Medicare and Medicaid
    The National School Lunch Program
    Pell Grants and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    collectivism

    And judging from the reaction of Republicans to the Iran deal, I don’t think they would have a problem with killing Persians in Iran.

    Are there individual Republicans who oppose some of these things? Certainly. But not many, and only a few things. But what about all the Republican talk about the Constitution, the free market, free enterprise, limited government, smaller government, less regulation, balanced budgets, lower taxes, property rights, and fiscal conservatism? Is it all just lies and hot air? In a word, yes.


    Okay, okay, okay, say Republicans, enough already. But you libertarians should at least vote for a Republican for president so he can nominate conservative Supreme Court justices and Republicans in the Senate so they can confirm the nominations.


    Is that so? Three of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in my lifetime that didn’t turn out how Republicans wanted were:

    Roe v. Wade (abortion)
    National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Obamacare)
    Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage)

    The writer of the majority opinion in all three cases was a Republican appointee: Harry Blackmun, John Roberts, and Anthony Kennedy. And why did only three Republicans in the Senate back in 1993 vote against the confirmation of the most radical leftist on the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg?


    Correct, history tells us we should be wary of more of the same. Politicians only get better at politicking.

    Libertarians would have to be out of their mind to vote Republican.
    False. There are jurisdictions where there are only two viable options and a good candidate exists.

    Libertarians would have to be out of their minds to think voting Amash over Hitler is immoral.

    And there are shades in between.

    The arguments against voting for the good candidates need to be better than this to be convincing.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    Pre-emptively, and falsely, characterizing (Rand Paul) as opportunist in same vein as traditional politician.



    [/COLOR]Use of 'they' further illustrates author fails own purity tests. Use of 'sucker' further illustrates false characterizations (creating and then attacking a cartoon)



    Individuals have varied opinions.

    [U][B]

    Fine. 'Voting' then is the easy target. The single, lonely vote that only the insane loser would take 2 minutes to cast, at zero personal risk and very little personal cost. And yet the aim of the article itself, though probably not intentionally, is to convince others to throw their hands up in the air, lose hope in touching anything electoral, to harbor disdain for peers who do(rare, sweet, precious peers in a world of idiocracy!), and write articles that convince others to do the same. Well misery loves company.



    It is not one vote but a lifetime of both voting (on candidates and issues - each election being a dozen or more votes) and of not being a person who discourages other likeminded votes / encourages likeminded votes.



    Irrelevant to the big race in question, which does not resemble that description, though true of most races.



    Irresponsible characterization given the obvious implication of the unique case of Rand Paul's great, worthy, heroic effort.



    Fair enough, but like most quotes, penchant for the dramatic and necessity of brevity results in something short of axiom.



    Quippy, but does not apply to the times when voting is rational, justified, acceptible, and consistent with libertarianism.



    Must prove voting is always evil, but doesn't. Implication is veiled and untrue. Voting against laws is not evil. Voting for a candidate who represents smaller government is not evil.



    Wasted vote argument is indeed garbage.



    Strategic voting can be sensibly discussed but the argument that a 3rd party candidate causes one side to win and therefore invalidates the free expression of individuals is indeed garbage.



    I agree, shaming individuals' from voting as they see fit is garbage.



    And Libertarians want Republicans to vote for them, or whatever absurd amount of words it would take to properly describe without grossly generalized collectivism.
    [COLOR=#111111]


    Because they wish to and have the freedom to. And then, because there is a candidate worthy of it.



    collectivism



    Correct, history tells us we should be wary of more of the same. Politicians only get better at politicking.

    [COLOR=#111111]

    False. There are jurisdictions where there are only two viable options and a good candidate exists.

    Libertarians would have to be out of their minds to think voting Amash over Hitler is immoral.

    And there are shades in between.

    The arguments against voting for the good candidates need to be better than this to be convincing.
    https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=010115...ing&gsc.page=1


    Most of the sheeple get the shepherds that most of the sheeple deserve.

    "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

    "Those who cast the votes, decide nothing. Those who count the votes, decide everything." -- Joseph Stalin
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 09-02-2015 at 08:11 AM.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    False imperative. That's like insisting that libertarianism solve all problems in order to be a viable 'better than what we have.'

    Voting repealed a tax one time. Argument annihilated
    No imperative. It's just a question. No insisting. It's just a question. No argument. It's just a question. (I'll just mark you down as answering the question, 'No'. )

    "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob LeFevre

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    False imperative. That's like insisting that libertarianism solve all problems in order to be a viable 'better than what we have.'

    Voting repealed a tax one time. Argument annihilated
    Bravo.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Bravo.
    For what? For mischaracterizing and not answering a question, not addressed to him?

    Whatever it takes to float your boat. <shrug>

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    No imperative. It's just a question. No insisting. It's just a question. No argument. It's just a question. (I'll just mark you down as answering the question, 'No'. )

    "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob LeFevre
    Wait a minute, are you saying that this statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Wouldn't you be inclined to think that just maybe all those years of cumulative voting just might have solved all of those annoying problems by now?
    Should not be read assuming the underlying premise:

    If it were possible for years of cumulative voting to solve all those annoying problems, they would be solved by now.

    Cryptic slipperiness forthcoming.
    Last edited by nayjevin; 09-02-2015 at 11:16 AM.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    Wait a minute, are you saying that this statement:



    Should not be read assuming the underlying premise:

    If it were possible for years of cumulative voting to solve all those annoying problems, they would be solved by now.

    Cryptic slipperiness forthcoming.
    Reading for actual comprehension often just absolutely does wonders. I highly recommend the practice to you.

    Are you perchance the one that temp banned me for bogus fabricated BS "reasons"(so called)? If so, that would tend to explain a lot.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    People should vote according to their own conscience. Everyone else should mind their own business about that decision.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by adissa View Post
    People should vote according to their own conscience. Everyone else should mind their own business about that decision.
    Should people NOT vote according to their own conscience? Should everyone else mind their own business about that decision also? (Searching for consistency.)

    Follow up questions to be forthcoming.

  22. #19
    lol ok fair enough

    I had it in my mind Ronin was a serious poster. I have not encountered this rare specimen, the needling lingo-reversalist, enemy of the specific.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    The least of 20 evils is still just fricken' evil, when all is said and done.
    What defines the lesser of evils? What defines the perfect candidate?

    IMHO, it's an exercise in absolute egoism. The so-called "perfect" candidate is the one who agrees with us, and communicates in exactly the way we want at all times. With that mindset, there is only one way to vote for a perfect candidate. A person would have to run for office, and vote for themselves. And then when they screw something up, they can say that they sold-out, and then never vote again, because even the perfect candidate wasn't perfect.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    For what?
    For pointing out that some people hate the idea of voting so much, that they put their fingers in their ears and scream "La La La"! Until they have convinced themselves that its impossible that some situations have been improved by casting a ballot.

    You have said in the past that anyone who votes is not a libertarian, if that were true, then libertarians care mare about feeling smug than they do about liberty.

    See, those of us here who vote don't treat it as some magic formula. Its just a tool that others refuse to use.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    lol ok fair enough

    I had it in my mind Ronin was a serious poster. I have not encountered this rare specimen, the needling lingo-reversalist, enemy of the specific.
    Sometimes serious, sometimes not. Is one or the other required. If so, what is the relevant mandatory RPF Guideline?

    Reflected idiocy noted.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    Cryptic slipperiness forthcoming.
    Ha ha, you called that correctly.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    For pointing out that some people hate the idea of voting so much, that they put their fingers in their ears and scream "La La La"! Until they have convinced themselves that its impossible that some situations have been improved by casting a ballot.

    Voting is a violation of the NAP. Unfortunately aggression IS sometimes rewarded.

    You have said in the past that anyone who votes is not a libertarian, if that were true, then libertarians care mare about feeling smug than they do about liberty.

    Your comprehension of "libertarian" is woefully shallow and lacking.
    https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...IVSZENCh2_NwaY

    See, those of us here who vote don't treat it as some magic formula. Its just a tool that others refuse to use.

    Just like the other historic and present forms of aggression, force, coercion and violence.

    There always seems to be some lame fabricated BS rationalization and/or excuse.

    According to the late Bob LeFevre, only about 5% of mankind is civilized.
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 09-02-2015 at 02:35 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Ha ha, you called that correctly.
    Only to the clueless, cognitively challenged, blind to the world around them.

  30. #26
    Voting is a violation of the NAP. Unfortunately aggression IS sometimes rewarded.
    Voting is not aggression.

    Voting for Hitler is an attempt at being a part of providing circumstances that may or may not be reasonably predicted to result in aggression. But your position is that voting has statistically zero chance of turning an election.

    How can an act that has no chance to result in real world change be considered aggression?

    It is a desire to maintain an illusory higher moral standing of consistency that clouds the ability to rationally determine the best course of action.

    If you would not vote for Amash over Hitler, you should also not eat anything that has even a particle of toxicity.

    Voting for the candidate who represents less aggression is not immoral, and we should be accountable for wrong choices.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  31. #27
    If voting were only a symbolic counter of how far we have come, we should still do it. In an effort toward change, it's invaluable to know how many currently stand in favor of a given candidate (set of ideas) or legislative resolution.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    What defines the lesser of evils? What defines the perfect candidate?

    IMHO, it's an exercise in absolute egoism. The so-called "perfect" candidate is the one who agrees with us, and communicates in exactly the way we want at all times. With that mindset, there is only one way to vote for a perfect candidate. A person would have to run for office, and vote for themselves. And then when they screw something up, they can say that they sold-out, and then never vote again, because even the perfect candidate wasn't perfect.
    Right, and understanding this, representative government is formed. Yes, some people are idiots - but prior to attempting to think about a thing with that part of the brain, the human's ability to recognize trustworthiness among those with whom s/he has ample experience is pretty darn good, given the individual was raised in a reasonably sound environment. Therefore very local, small, checked-power representative government. Division of labor, free market forces, resulting in representative and competent leadership. And pitchforks.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    Voting is not aggression.

    Voting for Hitler is an attempt at being a part of providing circumstances that may or may not be reasonably predicted to result in aggression. But your position is that voting has statistically zero chance of turning an election.

    My total voting boycott since 1972, has not changed the out come of a single election. I'd call that a "statistically zero chance of turning an election". I doubt that ANY of your votes either have had even a miniscule outcome effect.

    How can an act that has no chance to result in real world change be considered aggression?

    It's called sanctioning the process.

    It is a desire to maintain an illusory higher moral standing of consistency that clouds the ability to rationally determine the best course of action.

    "We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

    If you would not vote for Amash over Hitler, you should also not eat anything that has even a particle of toxicity.

    HUH?!?!? Mixing metaphors rarely turns out well, or as intended.

    Voting for the candidate who represents less aggression is not immoral, and we should be accountable for wrong choices.

    The NAP makes no such exception.
    It IS for true libertarians (and also for voluntaryists).

    Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
    http://voluntaryist.com/
    Is Voting an Act of Violence?

    by Carl Watner
    Number 103 - Apr 2000


    This short article was sparked by my work on a forthcoming anthology on non-voting, tentatively titled "The Non-Voters Are Right!" Hans Sherrer, a subscriber to The Voluntaryist, sent me an essay entitled "Voting Is An Act of Violence," which began with the statement "Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in his lifetime[1]." How true is this?

    First, let us define our terms.

    The kind of voting referred to in this article is electoral voting, meaning the act of choosing a particular person for a particular political office. To vote in an electoral election (federal, state, or local) one must first register (after meeting certain age and residency requirements) with the appropriate governmental agency. Then on a given day, all registered voters are given the opportunity to make their choices (in secret) at a government polling place. At the conclusion of the day, the votes are tallied, and the person who received the most votes for that political office is deemed the winner, and eventually sworn into office.


    The kind of violence referred to in this article is physical force (shooting guns with the intent to kill or maim, imprisoning recalcitrants, confiscating property) exercised by the employees or agents of the state (policemen, court marshals, militia men, and soldiers) who wield this force against those who disobey State laws and regulations (referred to as "refuseniks," later in this paper). Usually the threat of arrest and imprisonment is enough to make most people docile and obedient; but the ultimate sanction held by the State and its personnel is "death" to those who refuse to cooperate. The most recent and prominent examples of these deaths are Randy Weaver's wife and child, those incinerated at Waco, and John Singer, the Mormon homeschooler, shot by a Utah "law enforcement" officer in January 1979.


    Now what connection is there between electoral voting and those who act violently in the name of the State? Why does the State want large numbers of people to participate in electoral voting? There are two primary reasons for this. First, those who act in the name of the State can use the fact that many people vote as evidence that they are acting in the name of "the people." Widespread voting is cited as evidence of "consent." State agents, such as legislators, presidents, and judges need an aura of legitimacy if their actions are to be viewed as right and proper by a large majority of the population. Second, governments - especially democratic ones - have discovered that as the proportion of the citizenry which holds the government in esteem increases, the less force the government requires to keep the balance of the population (those who view the government as illegitimate) under control. In other words, the more legitimacy that a government attains the less it needs to exercise outright violence against it opponents. A government which continually had to resort to violence to achieve its ends would soon be seen for exactly what it was: a criminal gang.


    So, given that a successful State requires legitimacy and that one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy is through widespread voter participation, what is the responsibility of the voters for the actions of its government?


    By voting, it is clear that each voter endorses the governmental system under which he or she lives. By the act of voting, each voter is saying: It is right and proper for some people, acting in the name of the State, to pass laws and to use violence to compel obedience to those laws if they are not obeyed.


    Clearly, the voter - by pulling down a handle in a voting booth - has not used violence personally. Voting is not the same as pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at a refusenik. The voter has not used force, any more than the lawmaker, president, or judge does when they pass or sign a law, or issue a judicial decree. Yet all these people have either supported or participated in a system of governance which ultimately results in people being bullied or forced into obedience.


    In legal parlance, we would have to say that the voters, office holders, and other participants in government have "aided and abetted" (incited, encouraged, countenanced) the police, soldiers, and jailers who actually commit the physical aggression required in order to bring about submission of the refuseniks. Various war crime tribunal decisions since World War II have established that both elected officials and dictatorial heads of state are legally responsible for the commission of crimes that are committed under their orders, but not by their own hands. In other words, those giving the instructions to soldiers to kill innocent civilians are responsible, even though they do not personally hold the weapons or pull the triggers. Although this principle of liability has never been extended backwards from political leaders to those who participate in elections, it should be clear from this analysis that the chain of responsibility extends from those who exercise the actual violence, to those who give the orders that the violence be used, to those who participate in elections which result in those political leaders being elected.


    Now let us return to the initial question of this article: What truth is there to the statement that "Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in his lifetime."? Let this question be answered by assuming that one is not a serial murderer or does not engage in any type of overt criminal activity. In other words, let us assume that most people who vote in electoral elections otherwise lead peaceful, innocent lives. Is voting the most violent act that they will commit in their lifetimes? Based on the argument in this article, the answer must be "Yes." Each person, by voting, sanctions the violence used by agents of the State. The link in the chain of responsibility for that violence surrounds each voter when he pulls down the lever in the voting booth. Voting is an act of presumptive violence because each voter assumes the right to appoint a political guardian over other human beings. No individual voter or even a majority of voters have such a right. If they claim to possess such a right, let them clearly explain where that right comes from and how it squares with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, [and] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable "Rights" of "Life, Liberty," and Property.


    It was with good reason that Henry David Thoreau in his essay on "Civil Disobedience" called for a total abstinence from the ballot box. "When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished."

    http://voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/in...l#.VehIUH0RESU

    [BTW, for your consideration, Ron Paul has called himself a voluntaryist]

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    [BTW, for your consideration, Ron Paul has called himself a voluntaryist]
    By the way, for your brain, Ron Paul was a U.S. Representative for over 30 years.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Seven Reasons Libertarians Will Use to Justify Their Vote in the Republican Primaries
    By Ronin Truth in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 09-09-2015, 09:45 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-05-2014, 02:21 PM
  3. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-05-2013, 10:32 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-04-2011, 02:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •